Is age 3 REALLY worse than 2?

[Anonymous]

I have a two year old DS who is wonderful but definitely has his share of toddler moments. I just found out I am pregnant and he'll be 3 when the baby arrives. Today at work someone said to me, "It way worse to have a baby and a 3 year old!" Do you think that's true? Is 3 really worse than 2? TIA.

[Anonymous]

First, your coworker is an idiot for saying that to you. I mean, what are you supposed to do about your situation?

Second, there is no perfect child spacing. EVERY spacing has its pros and cons. So, be prepared for some cons and anticipate some pros. It will be fine! Congratulations!

[Anonymous]

Nope. Don't listen to anyone's idiotic comments. Enjoy your good news!

[Anonymous]

Every single person I know with more than one kid who had them spaced three years apart tells me it was awesome -- the older was potty trained, listened to directions, could play independently for short periods, etc. EVERY single person.

On the contrary, EVERY friend who had a newborn with a 2-or-under felt like they were under siege for a whole year until the elder turned about 3 and did all the above.

I think your coworker is an idiot and you are going to have a GREAT family setup with #2.

Congratulations!

[Anonymous]

I have a 3.5 year old and for us, no way. 3 has been WAY better than 2. But, my kids are 2 years apart and it might be that the first yer with two just kicked my ass and you could be in for the same. That said, I think a 3 year spacing is much easier than a 2 year spacing for hte first year. 2 year olds still need a ton of hands-on supervision, 3 year olds, much less so. Congratulations, as hard as it was for the first year, I love having two.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't worry about it. My first WAS worse behaved at three, but he was a very mild two year old. That said, even ornery three year olds are much more self sufficient than two year olds and thus presumably easier to manage with a baby.

My kids are less than two years apart, which definitely had it's challenges, but ultimately is a lot of fun. If we go for a third though, I think I'm waiting until the little one is at least 3. The thought of having a newborn with a 3 year old and 5 year old seems downright pleasant!

[Anonymous]

In my experience, no, but really, what are you going to do if the answer is yes? Not have the child?

[Anonymous]

My third child was born shortly after my first child turned 3. It was a difficult year, but we managed ok most days. You will, too.

I agree that you will appreciate how independent and helpful your 3 year old can be. Involve DS and really emphasis how important and special it is to be a big brother. Our 3 year old would get diapers, throw the dirty diapers in the diaper pail, put dirty clothes in the hamper and was able to color when I was bf. All of that is incredibly helpful. My 18 month old middle child could not do any of that. Enjoy, it all works itself out somehow!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every single person I know with more than one kid who had them spaced three years apart tells me it was awesome -- the older was potty trained, listened to directions, could play independently for short periods, etc. EVERY single person.

On the contrary, EVERY friend who had a newborn with a 2-or-under felt like they were under siege for a whole year until the elder turned about 3 and did all the above.

I think your coworker is an idiot and you are going to have a GREAT family setup with #2.

Congratulations!

"EVERY" single person you know had a 3 yo who listened to directions? I doubt that PP. Seriously, we have a three year spacing and I don't know why it is so popular. Yes, DD is potty trained, but she is also going through the phase where everything about the potty is interesting, especially the baby's diapers and "smelling poopy" or smelling and touching private parts. She has to go potty on demand in gross public places, and needs help wiping and washing hands, but often refuses it. I miss her diapers. She pays attention longer than at age 2, but still not very long, maybe, maybe twenty minutes until ideal circumstances. That's if you can get her attention, which is harder everyday. And she is so much more willful than at 2. At 2, tantrums rarely lasted longer than ten minutes and distraction avoided many of them. Now, she can go over an hour and get much more focused on the specific thing she cannot have. Her memory of the things she wants is also better. Deny her once, and she will remember it for weeks, possible longer. She is constantly testing boundaries. Every kid is different, and DD does love and appreciate our baby in a way that a 2 yo could not, but OMG 2 was so much easier for us. I wish we hadn't waited.

[Anonymous]

Third year with my first one(boy) was a breeze - cannot say the same for my seond one. 2 was bad and 3 got worse. She just turned 4 !!!

Every child is different and Don't worry.
Just enjoy each moment...

[Anonymous]

Age 3 *is* worse than age 2 in my experience in terms of parenting, dealing with the child's behavior issues, and discipline. It is just a more challenging developmental age for me personally, because they can get SO upset about the most insane things, and your expectations of them are higher than for a 2 year old who still is mostly a baby .... BUT speaking as someone who has three kids who are each two years apart, I still think that spacing kids three years apart is better for the parents (and maybe ultimately for the siblings, as my kids fight and bicker a LOT in ways that maybe they wouldn't if they were further apart). As other PPs have said, even with the craziness of age 3, at that age they are still more self-sufficient and able to be helpful than a 2 year old. They are more able to play alone for longer periods, to understand an infant's needs, to feel genuine affection toward a baby sibling, and of course, potty trained is great.

[Anonymous]

DC is 3.75 and so far 3 has been a lot easier than 2 on pretty much every front. DC has a lot more self-control and ability to delay gratification (ie, understands "we can't do X right now, but we will do it after dinner," whereas at 2 all desires not immediately met were tragedies). And yeah, being potty-trained is pretty magical, especially now that DC is not just out of diapers but able to handle most of the logistics independently.

[Anonymous]

I did think age 3 was way worse than 2. My son rarely threw tantrums and overall I enjoyed the two's, but 3 was tough. Lots of talking back, power struggles and discipline issues.

With that my kids are just under 3 years apart and it was a great age gap for us. I felt that the benefit to having them 3 years apart was that my son handled the new baby really well. Unlike some kids who are 2 when a sibling is born, my son could communicate better and help more with the new baby. I also think that having a baby made him feel more like a big kid versus feeling like he lost his status as the baby of the family. He was old enough to move into a big kid bed versus being kicked out of his crib for the baby and so on.

All that said, the truth is that a new baby no matter the age difference brings challenges. If kids are close in age you may not be dealing with the terrible 3s and a new baby, but you are dealing with a new baby and a active toddler and so one. There is no perfect timing.

Good luck!

[Anonymous]

It's never the age, its you, and how you nip things. They get easier with tremendous consistency

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's never the age, its you, and how you nip things. They get easier with tremendous consistency

It's also temperament. I have three kids. Two definitely had easier dispositions than the third.